About this Show

Capital News Today

News/Business. News.

NETWORK

DURATION
03:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 100 (651 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 14, Mr. Crone 8, John Chapman 8, Rupert Murdoch 7, James Murdoch 6, David Cameron 6, Gordon Brown 4, Mr. Murdoch 4, Mr. Watson 4, Murdoch 3, Sheridan 3, Mr. Mylar 3, Mylar 3, Mr. Taylor 2, Tom Crone 2, James Murdock 2, Goodman 2, Crone 2, The Newsroom 1, Itt Co 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Capital News Today    News/Business. News.  

    December 19, 2011
    11:00 - 2:00am EST  

11:00pm
had the journalists pay the 900 pieces of information obtained by the investigator to the shall we say unorthodox message you told me earlier that it was to come before the committee and told you to tell the truth which i think was excellent advice. is it not the fact, is it not the truth of the matter that journalists at the daily mail and i'm sorry, the news of the world, felt entitled to go out there and use deception and phone hacking because that is part of the general culture of the corruption in the tabloid press and they didn't change because they were entitled to use the same as it reveals. isn't that the fact of the matter? >> i am aware of those reports. the questions around other newspapers and the use of the
11:01pm
private investigators. but i think all i can really speak to in this matter is the behavior and the culture at the news of the world as we understand at how we are trying to find out what really happened in the purple and question but also with importantly it's not for me here today to impugn to other journalists were other things like that. >> the news of the world to engage in these legal practices particularly phone hacking because it is wise in the tabloid journalism and as evil as it was because it is so widespread. >> i do not expand that if a journalist on one of our papers or television channels or internet news operations feels they don't have to hold
11:02pm
themselves to a higher standard i feel that is important that we don't say everybody's doing it and that is why people are doing it at the end of the day and have a set of standards we believe and we have to have titles and journalists to operate at the highest possible standard and we have to make sure that when they don't live up to that but they are held to account and that is really can trust. >> have you considered suing? the reason you did not do the investigation is that you relied on the investigation by the police, the investigation by the commission and the investigation to and by [inaudible] if you want something done you
11:03pm
should do it yourself and this relies on the three sets of people in the investigations have you considered suing them? >> any future legal claims or actions in any matter is really a matter for the future that is not -- this really today is about how we actually make sure that these things don't happen again. so i won't comment or speculate on these future legal matters. >> with the evidence you were asked by my colleague if he had read it and they said no. under the circumstances where you rely on the people and advisers and the let your company down, do you do not think mr. murdoch you ought to take at the time and read through everything? >> for clarity, i did say that i did read some of the content of that. they were shown to me. and what i saw was the decision to know that it should be the right thing to do was to have these over to the authorities to
11:04pm
help them. >> by understand that but do you not think that it represented which can be tricky under the circumstances and the enormous damage i'm sure you'll be the first to read it has been done to news corporation do you do not think the senior executives of the company should take the time and read through the entire finals of what happened and you are not relying on -- >> i'm happy to do so. i think you've seen a bit of it. >> okay. my last question is for you, mr. rupert murdoch. you said that your friend 52 years i think has stepped down and has resigned because he was in charge of the company at the time. in other words he said he was the captain of the ship and therefore he was lobbying. is it not the case that you for the captain of the ship, you are the chief executive officer of news corporation but you are in charge of it and you do not
11:05pm
regard yourself as a hint of chief executive. this terrible thing happened on your watch. [inaudible] >> no. >> why not? >> because i feel that people i trusted him i'm not saying who, let me down and i think they behaved distastefully and be treated the company and me. i think that frankly prime the best person to clear this up. specs before mr. murdoch. i do very much appreciate your and encourage and having seen this through despite what just happened to you. thank you. >> thank you [inaudible] when you signed off on the
11:06pm
payment, did you see or were you made aware of that transcript that he had? >> nope. i was not aware of that at the time. >> there was no reason for it. >> there was every reason to settle the case given the likelihood of losing the case and given the damages that we had conceived council would be levied. >> if they are prepared to release their obligation to the system jihadi will you release the clause so that we can get? >> i cannot comment on the matter. i wasn't involved in that matter. as to the matter is a confidential agreement i don't think it is worth exploring hypothetical. >> he removes himself from an
11:07pm
obligation. if he were to realize if his people were to be released -- >> in the hypothetical scenario i am happy to respond to the chairman about what is specifically you would like to know. other than the details in the testimony today. >> but we get to the end of this. >> i'm getting calls i think we have covered this at length. [inaudible] [laughter] i know you did ask as you make a closing statement a committee would be intend for you to do so. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and members of the committee. i would like to read a short statement now. my son and i came here with great respect for all of you. for parliament and for the
11:08pm
people of britain that we represent. this is the most humbling day of my career. and all that has happened, i know we needed to be here today. james and i would like to say how sorry we are for what has happened especially with regard to listening to the voicemail of the victims of crime. my company has 52,000 employees. i have led this for 57 years and i have made my share of mistakes. i have lived in many countries, employed thousands of honest and hardworking journalists. i owned nearly 200 newspapers and of different sizes and followed countless stories about people and families around the world. at no time do i remember being as sick and as when i heard of the family had to endure, which
11:09pm
i think was last monday. nor do i recall being as angry as when i was told that the news of the world could have compounded their distress 3i want to thank you for graciously giving me the opportunity to apologize in person. i would like all the victims of the phone hacking to know how completely and deeply sorry i am. apologizing cannot take back what has happened. still, i want them to know the depth of my regret for the horrible invasions into their lives. i & and i intend to work tirelessly to merit their forgiveness. i understand the responsibility to cooperate with you today as well as with future inquiries. we now know things went badly
11:10pm
robinette the news of the world. there were others to account that had came to itself. the behavior that has occurred during against everything that i stand for and my son, too. and not only it betrayed our readers and me but also the many thousands of magnificent professionals and other divisions around the world. so let me be clear in saying in invading people's privacy by listening to the voicemail it is wrong. paying police officers information is wrong to read the inconsistent with our phase of conduct as any place and any part of the company that i ron. same sorry is not enough. things must be put right.
11:11pm
no excuses. this is why we are cooperating with the police, whose job is to see that justice is done. it is our duty not to produce the outcome of the legal process. i'm sure the committee will understand this. by which we will manage to see and resolve these problems much earlier. when the two men were sent to prison in 2007, i thought this matter had been settled. the police and other investigations and others held that news international conducted an internal review. i am confident that when james rejoins news corporation he brings the case to a close, too. these are subjects you will no doubt explore and have explored today. this country has given me, our companies and our employees many
11:12pm
opportunities, and i'm grateful for that. i hope our contributions will one day also be recognized. above all, i hope we will understand the wrongs of the past and prevent them from happening again. and in the years ahead restore the nation's trust in our company and in all british journalism. i am committed to doing everything in my power to make this happen. thank you. >> thank you. >> can on behalf of the committee to for giving up so much of your time this afternoon to come here, and i would like to apologize again for the extremely unacceptable treatment that he received from a member of the public. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the committee will now have a break for five minutes. [inaudible conversations]
11:13pm
>> we now come to the second pass and i would like to welcome ms. rebekah books, recently chief officer of news international and i would like to speak to you for your willingness to come to the committee. we are very much aware there is an ongoing police investigation which could lead to proceedings and we will bear that in mind but we also appreciate your statement when respond to that he wanted to be as helpful as possible. could i just started today news international statements in july
11:14pm
july 2009 [inaudible] evidence to support allegations voice mails from many individuals had been interrupted, private investigators [inaudible] systemic corporate illegalities. would you expect now those not to break? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, before i answer that question, i would like to add my own personal apologies to the police that james and rupert murdoch have made today. clearly what happened at the news of the world and certainly when the obligation of the voice intercept was made to the victims of crime is terrific and abhorrent. so i just want to reiterate that. i also -- it is very keen to come here and answer questions today, and as you know, i was arrested and interviewed by the police a couple of days ago, so
11:15pm
i have legal representation here just so i don't impede those criminal proceedings which is what you would expect but i intend to answer everything as openly as i can and not to use that if at all possible. >> we are grateful for that. if you whether or not accept that statement that news of the world journalists intercepted voice mails or disrupt investigators to do so is actually on truth? >> again, as you heard in the last few hours from the fact is since the sierra miller buttons can to us at the end of december of 2010 the first time that we and the senior management at the
11:16pm
company at the time had actually seen the documentary evidence relating to a current employee. i think we acted quickly and decisively and we had that information as you know it was our document evidence that opened up the police inquiry in 2011 and january. and since then we have admitted liability on the civil cases and as many as possible we've appointed to charles to the victims of phone hacking if they feel they want to come directly to us and they don't want to incur the expense of legal costs begin come directly to be dealt very swiftly. as you know they are taking their time and the cases are not going to be heard waiting until it is there in order for people to come forward, so the course
11:17pm
there were mistakes made in the past but i think and i hope that you will agree since we saw the evidence at the end of december. >> until you saw the evidence was produced in the sierra miller case you continue to believe the only person in the news world and from hacking? >> in the sequence of events in 2009i think was the first time that all of us and i know some members of the committee spent a long time on this story and looking at the whole sequence of events, so i know that you know it pretty well but just to reiterate in 2,009 when we heard about when doug gordon taylor story appeared in the guardian i think that that's when
11:18pm
information unraveled but very, very slowly. we have conducted many internal investigations. i need to spend a lot of time talking to james and rupert murdoch about them, but we've been told by people at news of the world that time the consistently denied any of these allegations in the various internal investigation to do was only when we saw the sierra miller documentation that we realized the disparity of this attrition and one of the problems in this case has been the lack of disability and what was seen by general we've had serious disability and part of the direct effect of this is because we only see it during the civil procedure and then we act on it accordingly. estimate is it now your view you
11:19pm
would like to buy senior employees? >> i think because of the criminal procedure i'm not sure that it's possible for me to infer guilt until the criminal proceedings can take place. >> there are many questions i would like to ask you but i won't be able to do it today because the criminal proceedings so i'm going to be narrowing my question. tom crone? >> when we made the very regrettable decision to close the use of the world after 168 years tom crone has predominantly in the news of the world lawyer. he's in our little manager because of the situation at the news of the world he predominantly spent most of his time in fact pretty much 99% of his time on the news of the world and the rest of the company and the rest of the
11:20pm
title had been appointed new lawyers and close news of the world and he left. someone is still [inaudible] presumably? >> of the cases are being dealt with by, like i said the first one is the standards management committee that we have set up and we've seen the management recently and we've talked about that. but also the civil cases we got some test cases coming up before the judge in january and they are all people dealing with it. but tom crone's role was a hands-on legal manager news of the world. >> i must have misunderstood what james murdock implied but
11:21pm
it's been a busy day. as the editor of the news of the world how extensively did you work with private detectives? >> i think on "the sun" of adel and news of the world just as i became editor of "the sun" in relation to the privacy and operation managers who called him, and i think back than wheat acted extensively questions about the use of private detectives and as you know a chart was published of which the member of the news of the world think it was a think "the sun" on the table was to take a break but certainly it is in the top five in the observers of the guardians of the news of the world -- >> can i declare it was not
11:22pm
relevant for instance -- >> just to answer my question you expensively wrote the investigators is that the answer? >> what i said as the private detective and the late nineties and in 2000 was a practice and after the operation in the privacy reviewed this practice and in maine the use of private detectives stopped don't forget the time as you are aware it was all about the data protection and the data protection act changes that which were made and that's why we had the committee. >> how extensively did you work with private detectives? >> the news of the world like most newspapers. >> it's safe to say that you were aware of the payment to the
11:23pm
private detectives? >> i was aware that news of the world used private detectives under my editorship, yes. >> so you would have done payment for that? >> that's not how it works but i was aware that we use them. >> to approve the payment? >> the payment system in the newspaper which has been discussed at length is very simply to see the editor's job is to acquire the overall budget of the paper from the senior management. once that budget is acquired it is given to the managing editor to allocate the apartments to the to departments to read every person in the department has a different level of authorization. but the final payments are authorized by the managing editor. unless there is a particularly big set of photographs or something that needs to be discussed on the white lovely and then the editor would be brought in. >> they will discuss some
11:24pm
payments. spinet not necessarily come and no. 11 years ago he may have discussed payments to me but i don't particularly remember any instance. >> you don't remember whether you would have discussed any payment at all? >> i didn't say that. i said in relation to private detectives i was aware news of the world needed private detectives as every paper did. >> so you don't recall whether you are authorized payment? >> the payments of the private detectives had gone to the managing editor's office. estimate have they discussed them with you? >> i can't remember if we ever discussed them in the individual payments. >> in 2009 you said you did not recall. you appreciate this under the circumstance that we require the specific response to the question. did you ever have any contact
11:25pm
directly or through others? >> none whatsoever. >> with the former secretary confirm that? [inaudible] >> thus shield of the diary for the last 19 years? >> she probably doesn't for 19 years that she may have been, i don't know i did not meet him. >> what is it an electronic or peter format? >> it was a paper format until very recently >> [inaudible] have you ever met him? >> i mean, yes. >> were you aware that the news group newspapers registered news of the world or "the sun"?
11:26pm
>> no. >> so you didn't know he did? >> didn't know particularly he was one of the detectives used in news of the world. >> you didn't know he was on the payroll? >> no. >> did you receive any information that originated? >> to me? >> to me personally? solnit usn at and -- to you as editor. >> it is an entirely appropriate question but i cannot keep saying the same answer. i didn't know, i had never heard the name until 2006. other private investigators i did know about and have heard about >> now that you know what you know do you suspect he might have received this information? >> now i know what i know this is one of the difficulties obviously i know quite an
11:27pm
extensive amount not particularly the last six months of investigation and the story and glenn mulcaire i'm aware wrote on and off in the news of the world i think in the late nineties and continued through until 2006 when he was arrested. so obviously if he works for news of the world at that time he was involved and the judge said in 2007 we may disagree with that now in 2007 when he was convicted that he had a perfectly legitimate contract with the news of the world research and investigative work and i think that was quite repeatedly throughout the trial. >> have any contact directly?
11:28pm
>> no. again i had a lot recently about jonathan. i worked with the program as we all did and he was and am familiar with me. i am told that he rejoined news of the world in 2005, 2006 and he worked in the news of the world in many other newspapers in the late 1990's but that's my information. >> do you find them in serious criminal defense rehired by the paper? >> do you know who hired it? >> do you know who signed the contract? the investigation? >> the investigation the last six months is particularly around the information of voice
11:29pm
mail as you know. the management from the committee at news international are going to look and we already do have some information as the to the conclusion of the investigation. >> what information do you have? >> we get information that has a said they were there and many newspapers in the late nineties and then he was rehired by the news of the world sometime in 2005. in 2005, 2006? >> i'm sorry, no. >> did you not ask? >> i didn't know that we have hired him. >> did you not wonder what he did in 2005, 2006 given that you have a phone hacking scandal breaking around you? >> absolutely. and i have the information that he worked as a private investigator in the primer self as he was conducting many, many
11:30pm
illegal instances i saw as you did what he used to work. he used to work for many newspapers as you knew before his conviction as you say and then he was rehired by news of the world. ..
11:31pm
well, i have been -- my recent investigators, when i was at -- editor of "news of the world" was purely legitimate and, as you know, for the addresses and were about as of himself, and that is the majority, if but almost exclusively. i suspect that the "news of the world" also used parts investigators. >> i you aware that steve conducted indirectly look to some of the down funding? >> i was not aware of that until two weeks ago. >> your know what.
11:32pm
>> i am. >> and why did you watch corporation? >> as i said, it was 11 years ago. advance of this question many times, just to repeat, they were about conversion, which is funny in the dress for a mobile phone, that is live and the local version is and can be done through legitimate means. in fact, it was the business number. >> i've just said to you. good services are you working on. >> i read it in the york times the person concerned. the guardian and the new york times to know what i am saying is on both occasions which i do a private detective whose own salary. >> other detectives that you
11:33pm
worked with personnel. >> you do read them? >> no. >> a you aware? did the paper used detectives? >> he was the one that i was aware of the time. as i said, the first time i heard was what he was arrested in 2006. i remember. it didn't -- not that i can remember but you have the same impression that i have colleges operation murder mouth. >> one last question. you have any regrets? >> of course i have regrets. i read george's the idea that someone had of permission access by someone paid by "news of the world" or even worse authorized by "news of the world" is as
11:34pm
hard to meet as it is to of ruinous road and the all to request the speed with which we have found on and try to fog out have been. except to that earlier. and we are endeavoring to wear as they are with the company to investigate. of course there are regrets. private detectives. to what extent the "news of the world" felt justified in its practices. >> its more going, the celebrity a currency and then said openly
11:35pm
this book clearly which was published before this whole controversy broke the story of what erickson. how one excesses' by punching in the code. clearly he did it when it was something that happened at the daily mirror. you're talking of an operation but trough. the amount of news that was made . and i went to the information commission reports. for transactions in the associated this perverse group there are 13,807 transactions over 98 journalists and nice group. is it not obvious to be the
11:36pm
case, sir, that the use of private investigators for licit and illicit purposes as an absolute breach and that the "news of the world" participated with his sense of entitlement. everyone else was doing it. is that not the case? >> we have had a lot of the last two years, but particularly at take this committee held an enquiry into of russian motor mouth which was incredibly expensive. every single other, at the cult was called to this committee. as far as i was concerned the failing of all newspapers and is not understanding the extent of the use of private investigators across was held to account then, and many changes because the
11:37pm
operation of a round to the data protection act. and although i accept and a firm knowledge there will be far less than mine, but they have a very get editorial on this, i think a couple of months ago adjusting, again that private and how different is no. >> in 2003 considering there was widespread this fickle practices , legal sensitivities involved. but in your evidence of this committee in 2003 you're asked if he had paid the police in the past. if i may suggest to you, the medicare which he said that, you said it almost as though the implication being, as do all tell what newspapers.
11:38pm
in your knowledge or payments to the police widespread or they confined to "news of the world"? >> if you're the evidence of a given to those of three hours actually going on to, as you know hello mr. brandt was asking me to explain and the actual question ended. in 2003 stray parts of my comments of apparent to the police was, in fact, clarified. the chairman, the 2007 inquiry clarified it again to win back their flooded recently to the zero affairs committee at the end of march, i think. now, i can say that it -- i have never paid a policeman and myself. i have never sanctioned or none of the sanctions payments. i was referring, if you saw at the time of the home select
11:39pm
committee recently a he had a very high for flea street referring to payments being made to flee street. i was referring to the allied held belief, not a widespread practice. intact, it teary with the police, the information that these papers comes to charge. >> evidence through parliamentary committee yesterday stated that his knowledge the daily mail has never published a book on hacking or blanking. this comes from our group with a what doesn't 3807 transaction credit log. the you think is credible that all those 1300 plus transactions were illicitly obtained, or this
11:40pm
the culture of hiking and biking? >> i think that you have seen all of the group's in this country that news international has been the one to open the prime minister's public inquiry. the practices. we have not cut the permit as yet. the fact is i've got here in addition to, of the newspaper group's. like i said at the beginning, things went badly wrong with the "news of the world" command we're doing our best to sort it out, and i accept its up to speed that this committee would have wished, but we are trying to make it right. the operation is important to. there was a select inquiry. and it is properly right that the ethics of journalism or in concert review because, the
11:41pm
freedom that this person enjoys which i believe in those strongly, if there is that costs a review of conduct then they were addressed. >> one final question. your correspondent to did take some questions. even you reviewing -- refusing to say anything. you been willing to attend, and identify for operation motor mount. whenever tactic "news of the world," it was smart and wide a culture. they seemed to know or implied that these practices are going on elsewhere. how could you not be aware that there are going on at the "news of the world," and tuna regret the you deny yourself as it takes some time of investigation into the "news of the world" is said the voting for this they slip out?
11:42pm
>> i think just go back to a 2002-3 with all the changes, the fact is there was a change at the rate card committee level, reporting. there was a fundamental change. and particularly, like a said, i was then editor of the sun. i can say absolutely that the sun is a very plain share, a great reader, and a budget debate the operation. >> they do. >> quite clearly what the
11:43pm
responsibility senior management . >> i think emma have missed that part of the evidence. it's exactly how it was, but we all talk together. of the time. rupert murdoch. yes. >> we knew where inventing yourself to the closing during the private session at the key says something like a novel, can you expand? >> when i went down to the newsreel of tuzla this is barry
11:44pm
hon. journalists have been pushing out the newspaper for a long time. and a great pride in his favor. lows saying is right now he may not understand why he, but as a month and i the guy sitting in a year's time it will come to the realization that we actually did the right they. it once you break the trust there is now let's go back. we need to read leave it the news for the right reason. it has been leading the red headlines for the reason. and we felt that was the right to schism.
11:45pm
of course it was not for the hundreds of journalists who have done nothing wrong are no waivers possible, many who has been years at "news of the world", and we have endeavored to find a job for every one of that. >> a real expected to -- >> what you expect to happen in a year from now? >> as i said, part of the problem with this story is the lack of visibility and of the pecking mentations in 2006. we have no visibility on it.
11:46pm
you have the visibility of it. although the police have visibility on it, and they are connecting their inquiry. and sure that will come out in the thousands and thousands of documents that this there are there and in a year's time we would get to a final position on what exactly happened. >> can ask you a couple of questions. the former nsc was made. a question to you, unfortunately , to his mother could not answer. it pulled up during the course to of course of last year's trial, a divorce on two occasions. swaying court said opinion. @booktv used perry detectives close surveillance, phone hacking as some black hole. that is not the case. the know anything about that?
11:47pm
>> what you're referring to is an issue that we have had, and i think i am correct in saying the information commissioner has put out verifications' and explained but there was no issue and that they were entirely comparable with the response from c-span. >> i don't know works if you did not think it was a good idea, why -- >> sorry. >> the melson have since been retrieved, the use of them, any idea why? >> i think the clarification from the of racing commission was, in fact, that what had happened with the editor of this caution is of the world made a comment during a trial which had been interpreted as you're saying now. when he looks into it and asked his initial for exploration.
11:48pm
and so there was no such retrieval. >> have you been in contact with and the costs of? >> during the sheridan case. i think andy was on downing street during the sheridan case, and i would have. >> i'm sorry. >> i said i would have had contact. >> conversations. >> it was windy to do with work, but by e-mail or telephone. >> just a couple. why would you pay, legal fees during ms. sheridan case. >> as i understand is, i know james rucker addressed this. when in the left the "news of
11:49pm
the world" he had in the grant that all matters relating to this come his legal fees were paid camera and that seemed the same park five kidman. on general care i think it was with his legal fees will be paid with fact he was a cut it and it >> okay. i you aware of anything that the police officers report? >> no. >> a day. that's it. >> devon collins. >> thank you. just for the record. during that time. >> correct. >> have some specific questions i would like to ask you, what could you pay to picture for us about how unease the rubberlike then "news of the world" goes about putting on such a big story, with the level of reports would be in plenty and editing
11:50pm
story like that? >> as with any big story, the process, most stories start out with the process, and that was me being outside and is cited during an investigation story. his at that stage their border to go on and check the allegations and come back with a more -- you can imagine that every newspaper its 11 a federation, and only a percentage makes it actually to publication, so there are many layers from another to news editor of fun with the store or go to the back bench which ruby the people of will oversee the seven of the story. often felt the directly with questions and amendments.
11:51pm
the lawyers are involved -- involved in this stage throughout the process and finally the decision on publication will be made by the ethier conglomerate is and how prominent it was. obviously, it is a terrible story, and it would have been covered by all newspapers. and for a very long time. the trolly finished last month. >> but for some direct this would it be normal to expect it will be the editor or as a senior wrote the editorial staff working that day because of the incredible sensitivity of the material? >> that is truly true, yes. on any story. particularly, as you say, such a sensitive story the lawyers would be heavily involved.
11:52pm
with the information came from. >> i'll involve were you personally? >> as i say, the story ran "for a very, very long time, so i would have been involved in the story of the many years. even when i was editor of "the sun." the procedure in just send debility kill it had been in the news for nine years. >> say there would be someone present test today, which uses that would be the case the you bore heavily involved with, the stories? the shock and horror of what happened.
11:53pm
>> not particularly more less involved. the one thing i would say hello we have had a series of their way of terrible and tragic stories starting with many diverse his appearance and subsequent murder. and then of course, as you know, part of my main focus in my of "news of the world" is convincing parliament that there needs to be radical changes to the 1997 act which became known as sarah's law which was very similar to laws in america under megan's law. i suppose it had a particular x-ray involvement in many of the stories and what have been on the basis that i was trying to push and campaign for readers rights : the ten pieces of
11:54pm
legislation that area, the true and campaigning for us to be put forward. >> of the committee in 2003. an example of how you taught the teaching with the family and officers : supported and caring evidence with you on that day. they appreciate that was quite a long time ago, but was that something used and by no? do you have particular knowledge of the details? >> when i spoke about this in 2003i was aware. however, in 2003 as far as i was concerned, which may sound and light of what we have believed the allegations are, it may sound, quite frankly, ridiculous but at the time or believed to those on the case, and there were certain cases the press has exercised huge caution and try to respect the privacy.
11:55pm
for example, are rid of, you know, one member discusses aviation and was sent to go. i was going to that an incumbent of that durbin the story in the media. >> nothing but, just that.
11:56pm
the complaint was carried out unauthorized. >> of course. >> and when were you aware that the mayor of given this information to support their investigation? >> of the lowest -- and, of going to have to be slightly careful. i want to be as accurate as possible. reese of the story at the same time. liason reaction to like everybody else, was one of, you know? and discussed. a family who have suffered so much already has had these allegations that has added immeasurably to the suffering. a full apology and said we would get to the bottom of the allegations. if anyone other representing the
11:57pm
"news of the world" authorized by a professional journalist of the "news of the world" door to a still far and staggering to believe, but if you find out that is true, i have every confidence the news and judicial and the police would get to the bottom of that and should. >> appreciated. they keep but when you were aware whether information was passed to the police that resulted from the hechinger of many downs, and i understand you're not aware until recently. if it is the case that employees of "news of the world" were sanctions to redeem mills and then decided to pass that information up to the police. that is where you're asking us to believe?
11:58pm
>> press solyndra to the police? >> if information was received -- the information relating to the hacking, is a possible. you and said the first year about that was when you responses in the newspaper. but it must be the case before then someone without their knowledge to is an employee of "news of the world" decided without consulting the editor to pass it that on to the police. is that the case? is that the chain of events? >> i think -- i understand the question. is important to say that obviously the story went on for many years. and i have been editor of both the news of the world and the sun while the investigation was ongoing.
11:59pm
what i thought you're referring to was when i first heard delegation that the fellows of was mao's had been intercepted or authorized by someone at "news of the world," and the first allow her that was two weeks ago. >> the police but the hacking of the phone. >> i read the police immediately my first call was to center family and apology and assure them that we would get to the bottom of it. representatives in that with the family lawyer and almost immediately to try see were for ration to see if there's anything we could do or assistance. in the first they had to it was read this : police to say obviously in the last nine years if they had come across any information the support of these
12:00am
allegations could they please and to give it to the metropolitan police or so at least the men said of the standing committee. i have a response, and at the end of last week they said because it was part of the ongoing investigation they could not help me. >> it would seem, i think it's incredible that potentially allegedly an employee of "news of the world" would take the decision themselves to pass information to the police in an investigation they were part of and did not consult the new member of the staff. >> or allegation is that someone on the "news of the world" knew that they had themselves or
12:01am
authorize someone to access the voice mills. they then told police they had access the phone. is that it? >> it is a chain of events. the passing to the police of affirmation and also the deletion of messes. >> on the allegation, someone who writes on "news of the world" had access. voice mills were made out. it is an allegation, a new incredibly serious allegation. that is being investigated right now, and when i first heard of it was two weeks ago.
12:02am
sorry. that is his talent is. >> incredible that the editor was so under were of such fundamental issues? >> in some ways at the the opposite. i don't know anyone in their right mind who would authorize, no, sanction, approve of anyone listening to the voice mills of many down there in those of the senses. a system of anyone who think it was the right thing for them to do at this time more anytime. and i know we know more about, but that's all i can tell you. >> this is something that happened under your watch. if it is proven that this is the case with the take personal responsibility for what happened? >> well, i would take responsibility. absolutely. i really, really to are really do want to understand what
12:03am
happened. all of us to. after everything i have heard of this case i think there was farley the most shocking affair occurred for a long time is so leave the most shocking thing have heard about potential employees. >> they keep. i wanted to clarify. i was the observer the 40,001 when i was elected. it was in the time covered, and the site does speak to the observer. will the additional comment was made publicly in issue, mobile phone numbers. for your their aureus of converting mobile numbers to addresses by legal means,
12:04am
including web search. the person had to put their number of the internet or allies if the investigator had secured detroit mobile phone company or through the police you have to have a proper defense for doing so. so opprobrious trust offense if you were challenged. >> like i said, i felt, and many people disagreed with campaign, but i felt that cerus law and the act needed to be changed to protect the public. however, and the particular case i remembered it when i was represented with it. that was my own. >> mobile line 547 of the blue book held where your secretary
12:05am
is extension 4406? >> yes. >> i kennelly -- paul, once a person has been named been interviewed extensively by the media and has said that quite elderly that they're not guilty of any wrongdoing in cub understand why in the. i have to accept that. i don't think that the inquiry had said publication of an. i think that at the time we used private detectives in order to track down the many convicted. >> so it wasn't just a question of employing. >> you know, you're gonna be seen as a red the time. you left in 2001.
12:06am
it was not a new practice at the observer in 2001. in your time private detectives reviewed, and i'm sure you like i, clearly when we had the inquiry, and the subsequent inclusion of that it was the governments around protectiveness. the industry under the back of this committee inquiry changed their ways. >> the connection. i've put the arrest or convictions did not know a cap. two minutes will be adequate. news international, wind was, and secondly, more care was not
12:07am
really active until 2005, which was done by then. and not to make any research activities. we are going on notes and right. and the move is comprehensive. we are marching in over. >> if you're over at the time cal when the general arrested us in 2006 it was the news international, but the belief of the police that they would be investigating this. in fact, previous to the arrest, they have been investigating the situation in order to make the arrest. scientists and lori your use in the language, but that was the reality. three were told in the trial in
12:08am
2007 and predispose her and sentencing, state categorically that he did not start at some new -- access to voice those insults to the some four. that is with his head. that is what he told the trial. after 2000 son the community hearing news international conducted the entire investigation covered extensively, and the police shows their query. telam knowledge into the six because my own phone, as everyone knows, is accessed by glamor care. on a regular basis i have the same laws that everyone else does. whether you can say it is a myth now, clearly we have no seen the
12:09am
evidence that is not the case, but it was not a myth. it was what everyone believed. >> of very good description of all was left in the office, the safe. we have had an account to those of the times all of last few days, the number of people on news desks. and that the names of alex, acquired, build, james, there are some late terms. it's accurate. and yet we are still being asked to believe that to use a handgun and their simply did not know what your new staff was up to? >> look, i can't comment on what others into a room with a rally
12:10am
in new right. i give alito's to a what i was editor of news of the world and subsequently editor of the sun and as jeter executive i can account for my actions and try to get to the bottom of this. end in 2006 from mild person appointed you are was the editor of the sun. i have been approached by the police to explain the nature of the actions of my own voice miles. i was praying that back to the company. in the at the subsequent investigation the remains, and when i became chief executive in 2009, that is when i started to figure out much more sensibility of how we acted. >> well, after the story, which was the straw that broke the camel's back finally, your company on your behalf, and
12:11am
soon. dick to quit distance from new from being of promises of the time. that was the story. you were brought on holiday at the time. >> it is clearly relevant. i was editor at the turn this happened. i did not know the sapling. >> it's not irrelevant because they're distancing him from. >> you will find the source. >> he is prepared statement. we did not prepare a statement. i feel that as irrelevant. the editor of the paper and therefore ultimately it happened
12:12am
on my watch. >> but for the sake of when you were with deficit. >> this is the deficit. >> i had a deputy. mrs. you editor. >> so two of your way. >> i don't absolutely no. >> can i turn to the exchanges over the e-mail of the chief that was resigning for a long time, and the officers of hard rock and those? we received. sleep. he became the chief executive two dozen line. so james murdoch said he first learned about it on april or
12:13am
may. when did you first learn the evidence was there? >> just before james murdoch. >> what to the difference to you? >> that as you know we have this minister in committee and we said about. reopened their investigation in january, 2011. obviously it was our investigation that led to the opening of that inquiry, the fresh and that we handed over to the police, they opened it and subsequently been sent to the status committee that in order to facilitate any informations the requested or anything that we could proactively find tell them. as part of that disclosure and as part of the references made it to the internal investigation , the police -- part of the record, the police
12:14am
asked the majesty of this committee about and do well to look for it. we then found it. as i think james said, we took counsel about it. beam. >> according to u.s. chief executive, in particular : john chapman. to know what to recesses you had with john chapman after this came to light? will we have heard from mr. murdoch, john chapman sat on the file for years. >> the original inquiry into the seventh, i believe, was instructive and be. >> window. when the evidence came to light
12:15am
note to your committee and be end john chapman was a news international mom wheel director reports to you, to europe recovers issue? >> yes, i do. obviously we discussed it. as soon as it tends to lead to my think it was the end of april. i was told about it. mr. chapman was fastball for his knowledge, where the fires had been and what they have not come to light before. the minister is standard committee. >> his response. >> his response at the time was that he was asked to do in investigation into the illegal inception of with swells in chief of the the recommendations which was the lead of the unit gunman agreed he felt, as our
12:16am
legal adviser the the lawyers involved -- >> cut you off the hook. >> conoco was an accurate review of the file. that is something that killed the effort today then netted gems were wrecked or i thought it was. >> diseases to that of his own back. >> to what? >> disease is clearly get into this year and misleading weather to set of evidence that they're relying? is the fact? >> but the there are very respected law firm and none less sure to accuse the low off -- >> i've seen what jones seven low wage. yes dear john chapman -- >> disease it the decision not to slow the end? >> you asked if john chapman had
12:17am
asked. >> i know. i ask you what he said to you. >> cisco but you also says, did john chapman asked harmelin : lewis to write to a misleading letter. end murray's months of that question is that firstly the very effective legal for a tremendous sure their would be the case. the lawyer for many years, in the insurer they have done that. however, in light of what we know wind i and the management committee of news international saw the file we felt that it, from our perspective, and her new light on the separation that we have had in the past and handed over to police which it unless you have questions, but it would've been a very good questions asked.
12:18am
the acute. why did john c. and. >> in the previous session john chapin wanted to leave. we felt that as of this for processes and he was the right course of action. >> he has, on the floor. >> i think at the time that john chapman who is a culprit wire and daniel cote, i think that they would say of call to this committee in their experience and knowledge they felt that the letter was correct. >> statistic couple of final questions. listening to this romany people,
12:19am
the filings across fleet street were not continuous. the independent beauty. the meal times. in the coverage of the firm can you remember calling in the editors after the guardian of the story in july of 2005 to discuss how they would cover or not cover the story? >> in 2005. >> in 2009. calling around the editors to encourage the war not to give the story in the play. >> said or recalling a loaded coal but he and i would talk about industry matters on vacation. amelie knew what i read of the guardian. >> in the final question, to you recall a conversation with johnson during which gst, would
12:20am
you want that out? and your response was, i want a lot of those wishes to go down. i'm begging forgiveness. see you recall that conversation? >> absolutely not. [inaudible conversations] >> as tier but this earlier. in his intervention in the house on sixth july. he referred to the fact that after the news of the world's he suggested that hobbs there was less on her voice will allow us to reverse. march 22nd and it the community recommendations appears low blow. given the importance of who the lead out of the story in this
12:21am
series seven pitbull. >> there are a lot of -- to you after question about how you did nothing to mention? >> well, i said, the most important thing, i think, in the mini- is that we get to the truth to these allegations as quickly as possible, and that the that the sewer culpable of that, if that turns up to these true, should paid and that just a program "but also the character's sister lee uses of. so i am very mindful that have to be careful what i say because where arnelle. the fact is the suggestions that his voice low was intercepted by
12:22am
someone working for "news of the world" was unknown to me, is a report to me, and that's all i can tell you. for several press alone but further tried to understand the fact that there was a specific preference in the story. i am prized. i fully accept. >> but just to accept that, perhaps nine years ago when the store was robert gentle love the story you're referring to was a single column on page nine of the newspaper of that edition. i am sure questions were asked about where that information came from. would have been as to the reporter or the news editor. the web and a process around every story. there would have been a process. and i can tell you know that it
12:23am
would not have been the case that someone says to a alcoa yes , i will leave her voice was interception. is in smell that is the and soon will the people did not know this is the case, and at the time it wasn't a practice that was condoned or sanctioned at the news of the oral of aurora and the shed, and the strike until you. >> mr. watson went on to say tokyo but he suggests the you were present at the emmy's and scavenge yard during a murder investigation to provide key evidence that your newspaper. he presence of humans and they will another senior executive and also also has a larger holes and police. as news of the world call policy meeting of army. it can you tell us more?
12:24am
>> well, i can tell you something about it. i was asked to recall a meeting that i had stolen jargon 2002. i had -- bob, i was as recently about a storehouse. my information, recollection was there we go palm. my recollection of the meeting was on a complete different subject. and so personally join on what i was told by several for. they say meeting in november. but that muzzle was put to the. i checked my diary as much as possible. there's no leading in november. over, although subsequent meetings, very rarely j. lowry. it may be, but that was a lark direction.
12:25am
on the other hand it a lot of it did have separate release has volunteered. thank you. >> report laura says he relies of his left hand. sell-off with whom he trusts his life. to which you trust connection. >> the newsroom. if the newspapers based on just. did he think above him the way in which a story is published less of your life of the peoples of work for you to behave in a proper manner, and to rely on the clarity of the information that you're given a time. so that is why i can be so of saloon with the about the interception by my own personal being. so when you see your of trust,
12:26am
obeisance to of the newsroom is based on trust. for example, at the sun, the political editor and came to new with the story. i knew to be true. add to monday to ask was cabinet minister had leaked and the story. i just knew it to beecher because it was astounding, and his experience as a journalist. again, you can say there's the trust, but that is how it works. >> sent to be in his own public situation. >> yes. >> who else from what you know no. >> again, my team that would be.
12:27am
>> none of us should be judge and jury. >> many of us disagree on judge and jury. could soon those with you still know it? this seems as there is. could you say it is and that? >> the process of a criminal investigation started when we handed the documentation and we've found. of that documentation is then shared with the management from the standing committee and the international red yes this. all legal team working on this know about it, and also the police are were everything. >> and just to clarify, was ecru people given evidence?
12:28am
, people like colin malo. >> actually proline not. the management and stated committee was concerned with the current men's representative and the chief executive and my current executive. >> final question for me would be to you have any regrets? he had been in this by yourself. you have been subjects to quite the local media spotlight. is this make your success and the pots out? >> head of the to confide in the other planet that some headlines that they have a publicist and it's those states, environment if and when that. on the other hand despite, as you say will be in this fallen recently been having read lots
12:29am
of criticism was justified, i would defend the right of the free press for my entire career. the is vital. and, yes, it has not been and was one of the main reasons i wanted to leave because i felt as though i was detracting from the amazing journey with the people working at these international. i felt like i was detracting. we have a very diverse trust covering all spectrums and opinions, and that think the freedom should be insured. >> they keep. >> and nt. >> l.a. times which is pictured rupert murdoch? >> i will speak to mr. murdoch
12:30am
and james much more regularly than that is when i was his staff. >> was a day, twice a day? >> and his travel schedule call because of his wallet responsibilities. and that would touch a rupert murdoch quite regularly. ..
12:31am
as i explained he dominant lead as the legal manager for the news of the world and the legal team of the other newspapers said the was the current situation. >> did you know when you entered news of the world did you know that he was an informant to the
12:32am
police? >> no >> is that true? >> is in the evening standard. they quoted cord reports dating back to 2000 when he set himself up after a case after the intelligence in court and they said there was a substantial volume of information that was useful to the police. it said also sources close to them and this is a quote, people read the type of news international were aware of his role with the police. >> i was not aware that was the case. >> that is a complete shock to you? >> you are telling me now but i'm not even sure what it means. if you are asking me about did members of the press and members
12:33am
of the police force have a symbiotic relationship of exchanging information for public interest, then they did. but i'm not quite sure what the informant means. >> the delegation is he passed a substantial volume of information to the space and charter and in return he received items of confidential the information from the police national. >> i don't know about that but most journalists who work as either prime minister or, juneau, of current correspondence have a working relationship with the particular police force. >> when our report was published in early 2010 is when the chief of sick of news international, and there were certain things were obviously reported that we found the evidence from the
12:34am
people of news international had collected in the is a though we refer to in our poor report we found it was inconceivable that quite a good men had been passed on that we've referred to the e-mail so when you're the chief exit of the news international that the time that report was published did you read the report to be published? >> yes i did. i'm not saying i read every word but i read a large majority of it and particularly the criticisms that were addressed to the company. i can only hope that from the evidence that you've heard today that we have really stepped up our investigation and, you know, robert and james murdoch today have been very open and honest with you as a committee.
12:35am
i was willing to come despite the fact of the legal issues. when we saw this of full disclosure in december, 2010, we acted swiftly and promptly to deal with it and the police investigations would not be open now there would not be if it hadn't been for the information that news international handed over and i am not saying that we haven't made mistakes, but the metropolitan police have repeatedly said as you heard last week the committee heard last week and repeatedly said there was no need for the further criminal investigation. now i think that everyone involved in 2007 would say now that the mistakes were made but i hope you feel that we have responded appropriately and responsibly for the information in 2010.
12:36am
>> [inaudible] some things that don't stack up but we might not have any >> [inaudible] some things that don't stack up but we might not have any evidence of it i might not know anything these people. there's clearly something. did that prompt any activity on your part is the chief executive of news international to say let's go back over this and something isn't right here? >> everyone at news international has respect for parliament and for this committee. of course we've been criticized by the report with something that we've responded to. we looked at the report but it was only when we had the information i think you heard today from rupert murdoch who said this has been the most humble a we come before this committee to try to explain open and honest about what happened.
12:37am
of course we were very unhappy with the criticisms. we aspire daily to have a great company and your criticisms were felt. can you tell us how often you either spoke to or met with the various prime minister's since you've been the editor in the news of the world she is executive of news international, how often would you speak to or meat to any player, gordon brown or david cameron respectively? >> and the prime minister david cameron we've met i think the other day we met 26 times. i don't know that it is absolutely correct. i can, you know, do my best to come back to you on an exact number. the fact is i've never been to
12:38am
downing street where david cameron has been prime minister, and yet under prime minister gordon brown and prime minister gordon blair i'd make it down to the street. >> [inaudible] >> well, on prime minister gordon brown, in the time that he was on downing street and while he was -- also while he was chancellor, i would have gone maybe six times a year. >> tony blair? >> probably somewhere in the last few years a little more. if you want exact numbers i can do my best to get that. but strangely it was under the prime minister on downing street and not the current administration. >> do you think that there was a change when you're there with the chief executive news
12:39am
international it always struck me with the news of the world particularly "the sun" and around the enclave establishment kind of publication. there would always seem to me it was on the side of the establishment. would you say that when you became editor and obviously your relationship with those ministers, but there was a shift and actually the news international became a part of the establishment as opposed to the entire establishment? >> considering the complete by the prime minister's and about the coverage in "the sun" i think they would say that that is not the case. throughout my leadership at "the sun" one of the main campaigns that we have had i think "the sun" is absolutely the place for the military and that course of action and very uncomfortable conversation particularly with
12:40am
the prime minister gordon brown and all of the issues that are still apparent today is the lack of awareness of other aspects of the media and parliament to acknowledge that currently we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan and the war and people seem to forget that, so i would not say that any prime minister would think it isn't fighting for the right people. we continue to fight for the right people. >> how often would those prime ministers ask you as i've let the chief executive, how often or would they ever ask you not to publish a story? what they note this or what they sort of ask you to spike a story, would that happen? >> i can't remember an occasion when a prime minister has asked generally is that something that would have been?
12:41am
>> no. i can remember many occasions when a cabinet member or politician our prime minister was very unhappy with the stories we were running but not that they've ever barkley asked not to run. >> would you have been interested? >> as long as the story was true and accurate and part of a rare campaign than know, there is no reason for a prime minister -- that is exactly why we have the free press. >> as a final question there is a feeling that in some way you have a close relationship with the prime minister, the current prime minister and i think the allegation goes it seems to me it is the distance with your relationship to the previous prime minister but in terms of the people may perceive that you had a close relationship with the prime minister that was helpful to him and certainly news international to the hidden
12:42am
politically but as the return the news corporation's what in some way to greet the takeover. is any of that sort of part of why the strategy of the news corporation's would encourage you to get closer to the prime minister with that in mind? >> no, not at all. we have had many allegations about my current relationship with the prime minister david cameron including my extensive writing with him every weekend up. i have never been with and i don't know where that story came from. i was asked three days ago to disclose the rancor to the prime minister which i do not and i
12:43am
was asked to explain why i owned some land with the prime minister which i do not. so i'm afraid in this current climate many of the allegations put forward that i'm trying to answer honestly but there is a lot out there that just isn't true, and in particular around this subject, my relationship with david cameron. the truth is that he is a neighbor and a friend but the relationship is to be wholly and at no time have i ever had a conversation with the prime minister that you in the room would disapprove of. >> the newspaper reported the other day that you advised david cameron.
12:44am
>> [inaudible] >> i think it is a matter of public knowledge that when in the krugman left the news of the world that they should have discussions on whether he would be inappropriate person and the first time i heard it was not from the prime minister. >> so you had no conversation with david cameron. >> no, the answer is the allegation which i have read is that i told the prime minister to put your hand and that is not true. it never was true and the idea came from -- >> siggerud no conversation about him being suitable for that position?
12:45am
>> no. >> none whatsoever. >> you presumably would in a social context swap with david cameron when he moved and that could actually be having been of hand by illegal means with david cameron before and after but you might share. >> i hope my earlier in any social encounter that i've had with the prime minister any conversations were appropriate in my position as editor of the "the sun" with the prime minister.
12:46am
>> and did you approve the subsidizing of his salary after he left news of the world? >> again, that's not true. i didn't approve it. >> so the daily mail report is inaccurate that the salary is not being subsidized? >> that is correct. they are incorrect. >> one final very small question. would you agree the concern here is about the police when news of the world international? >> i think the public concern is
12:47am
on the interception and i think that is the overwhelming concern news of the world and news international would you agree? >> news of the world has been singled out and i think if you were going to address it and you know this more than anyone on the committee because of your journalist that it is wholly on fair in the closeness of police and politicians with the media to single out the news of the world. >> this has been a criticism and on the chief executive is a
12:48am
prosecution to advise you one your approach [inaudible] criticism for rubber stamping the complacency approach to the inquiry. do you think there was a narrow judgment given the circumstances? >> i think to clarify the issue which is important is that it was had by the news corporation's and he has been rigorous in his separation of payments to police and the inception of the voice mail. he has not committed in any shape or form on the illegal interception of the voice mail and if that conversation has arisen he is withdrawn himself in the room in the conversation,
12:49am
so -- >> [inaudible] >> i can forgive people shaking their heads if the question put to me was true but i think people understand the news corporation said news international as reporting directly into the and discussing i don't think people shake their heads not evil thing in the interception voicemail. >> , as you have anything else? >> just one thing the reserve to james murdoch i need to write my own. the most important thing i feel is to discover the allegation beyond the obligation of the
12:50am
victimless crimes but again i would like to make just one more request to the committee with the legal constraint the time today that he will invite me back in a more thoughtful way. >> i think the committee will be very happy in the meantime i think you in the way you answered our questions.
12:51am
>> news international chiefs executive james murdock some of rupert murdoch testified for a second time in november before a
12:52am
british committee leading the phone hacking investigation. he again said he wasn't told and had no knowledge of phone hacking at news of the world. this hearing is a little more than two and a half hours. >> first of all you will recall before this committee we spoke at length about the decision which you need to agree that borden should receive a substantial settlement. we understood that that time that the decision was taken by you with tom crone and colin but that you were not aware or made aware of that detail why the settlement should be reached and in particular the assistance of the e-mail. as you know we subsequently heard from tom crone and my letter that said they did make you aware of that e-mail.
12:53am
we want to say whether or not you still a firm you have no knowledge of the e-mail? >> yes. thank you very much mr. chairman and to the committee members. the meeting that occurred on the tenth of june in 2008 was for the purpose of gaining the authorization for mr. crone and mr. neither to increase the offer of settlements that they had already made a number of occasions to mr. taylor. the meeting i remember quite well and i was given at the meeting sufficient information to authorize the increase of the settlement offer that had been made an offer that had been made to offer by saddam to go and mr. crone to go and negotiate a settlement. but i was given no more than that. certainly evidence was described to me that indicated that the company would lose the case if
12:54am
it litigated. insofar as it was described in the widespread evidence or suspicion of widespread wrongdoing none of these things were mentioned to me including the detail and the substance of the council opinion that had been sought by them and received by them earlier it was only sufficient information to offer kristen to increase the settlement offer that they had already made. >> even if it wasn't described in the formal e-mail or you made aware of the existence that contained the transfer which in tom crone's oral was able to your case? >> yes and i think this is an important point to be very clear on that. as for two reasons. on the one hand was important the voice mail interceptions made on behalf of the news of
12:55am
the world and that was seen as evidence and has sufficient to conclude the company would lose the case. it named another journalist in the e-mail coming and that second part, the importance was not described to me in any detail or at all and it was not described and i want to be very clear, the documents were shown to me at that meeting were given to me at that meeting or prior. >> so it is now your position that you were made aware of the existence of the e-mail that was extremely damaging to your dependents. >> yes and i think in the summer and 1i was made aware there was evidence that the transcript existed and that was on behalf
12:56am
of the news of the world the deutsch and importance it was the e-mails also was beginning suspicion that other individuals were involved in the news of the world was not described in the e-mail was not shown to me either. >> were you aware of the legal counsel opinion that had been obtained? >> i was aware the leading counsel opinion was described to me but damages no damages were the case to be litigated and lost and was of sharon treat the leading counsel opinion or described to me the other things in the leading counsel opinions that were not to do it damages. there was a previous meeting which you had at the end of may?
12:57am
>> referring to a notes describing the conversation he had with mr. crone and to be very clear i hadn't seen this note before and did not know to mr. weiler said just or says that he spoke to james murdoch. he doesn't say there was a meeting. he refers to a conversation that he had, allegedly had with me. neither of us recall that meeting, that conversation or telephone call or what it might have been. and as i testified, the first substantive meeting that i recall in conversation that i recall the the the matter was the june 10th meeting with mr. crone and mr. am i were all the way can't rule out whether he called me or count me in the
12:58am
hallway or something like that for a brief conversation. >> michael eink will of more detail but before they do i think mr. chariton wants to comment. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> first of all, in december, 2007, ali returned to the news corporation as the regional chairman for all of our european and asian operations which included news international along with five other large entities in the area. but in the absence of a full-time ceo moved to the united states to run dow jones i had more direct responsibility for it period what time of news international. at a time he did not discuss with me any of the matters
12:59am
around mr. goodman cut his arrest and conviction and the subsequent matters this committee provided documents around or predated my presence in the company, and i had no discussion with him about it. he didn't raise it with me your brief me on it. >> did you asked -- >> did i ask about the settlement in particular? no, i did not. >> [inaudible] >> it was some time before i joined in those convictions. the arrests or well over a year before, a year-and-a-half before something like that. and there was no reason at the time to believe that there was anything other than a settled matter that was in the past.
1:00am
>> given the significant amount of money and the consequences that come before the future discrepancies, you don't think it is proper that you should ask we make sure that doesn't happen again? >> at the time, certainly -- at the time i received and the company relied on willing to close their case that internal the investigation had occurred that the two people had been successfully prosecuted and went to jail and so on and so forth. and i think it was seen as a matter that was in the past. the accountability had been delivered. the police had successfully prosecuted the case and closed the case in the investigation. so there was no prompt reason to the particular settlement matter that was well in the authority as the chief executive earlier to make a judgment on. >> you're father was during concerned about the case. why was he concerned?
1:01am
>> very concerned about the goodman settlement or the case? i think this is before my time in the business but i think certainly when a journalist was arrested at one of the newspapers in the group it should have been attar of concern for the chief executive. you never said why are you concerned of the goodman case? >> i was not an international or news corporation of the time. >> [inaudible] >> yes. i don't think we discussed the news of the world matter prior -- >> so you didn't see tv to say why are you concerned? >> he didn't raise it with me and it didn't have anything to do with my work at that time and so it didn't come up between us.
1:02am
>> you're father expressed the view that he was extremely humbled. do you feel the same way in your possession? >> i think i had some time to reflect on all of these events, and it certainly is appropriate to reflect and i think the whole company is humbled by this and what we are trying to do and what i'm trying to do is learn from the defense over the last number of years, try to understand why the company couldn't come to grips with some of the issues in a faster way as i would have liked for the company would have liked and learn from those. so yes i think we all humbled by it and trying to improve the business, improve the structures and the leadership across all of the operating companies to make sure that these things don't happen again because they are something that i am very sorry about. estimate just one question of
1:03am
what happened again. have you received any technical stock in the future? >> how do you mean? >> telephone companies as for any technical that you can get to make sure it doesn't happen again? >> i think it's that telephone companies -- i don't mean the technical details. we do not advice to the phone companies on the matter of voice mail interceptions, no. >> thank you. >> the last time i asked you the phrase of blindness [inaudible] had you had time to consider the face and tell the committee what you think it means? >> if you described to me at the time what it meant, and i think what i reflected on is really
1:04am
where in this process for their places where the company could have heard the alarm bells if you were or seen these alarm bells more clearly and to reflect on them dispassionately, and i think that if there was a mistake - or a shift that we need to focus on it is a tendency for a period of time to react to criticism or obligations as hostile or motivated commercial. we didn't do necessarily has reflected dispassionately among all of the clamor around a large business like this around the world to be able to try to pick out those things we could react to differently but at no point dividing the company had suffered from willful blindness on my part or others. >> you claim you didn't know the details of what was going on in your company, so do you think
1:05am
that evidence about phone hacking for the sample was kept from you? >> it is clear to me that in 2008 for example the information that i received about the case was in complete. and it's also clear to me that in 2009 upon the delegations are arriving in the newspaper about the case that the full extent of the knowledge within the business with the evidence within the business as well as with the metropolitan police was not made clear to me and that is something that i'm very sorry for. >> [inaudible] >> - mulcaire tickets important to remember that after the resignation of mr. paulson in 2007, mr. mylar was brought in as an outside person who had a responsibility to both clean up the issue come investigate the issue and move the company forward and the newspaper
1:06am
forward in a way that makes sure these things couldn't happen again. and if we would have known that there was widespread criminality that the residents are suspicious of that i think he should have told me those things >> and 2,009 thousands of mobile phones had been and news international responded with an aggressive denial of the obligations. why did you allow that statement to be issued? >> in 2009, it was the summer of 2009, and it was a year after the matter come and as i said to you, and i testified to this committee, i think the company did push back to hard within 24 hours of those allegations emerging we seem to recall the relevant document of the e-mail if the chief of police issued a statement that the same matter as a matter of careful and
1:07am
extensive investigation by the experienced detectives and that there was no new evidence to warrant further investigation and in july we relied on both the assertions repeated assertions to the company around the quality and scope and breadth of the internal investigations that had been done in 2006 and 2007 the reassurances by the publicly that there was no new evidence in the third party company's actions and the company relied on those things for to laugh and i think it is clear the company did and with respect to the leading counsel's opinion the detailed report for the document, the company would have acted differently and probably in a way similar to really move
1:08am
as aggressively and determinedly as we can to sort this out and make sure we put it right. >> who should have reported these things to you? >> as i answered the question earlier, i believe that evidence or suspicious physician of widespread criminal plea in delegations were there of the new editor that to come in to clean this up to make me aware of these things in 2008 and in 2009i received the same assertions of the quality of those investigations and the lack of evidence this committee and that is a matter of regret.
1:09am
>> i expect you to know what was going on and know what was going on but being willfully blind to it or not knowing what was going on when you should have known what was going on. >> i think it is important to put in news of the world in the context of the scale of the overall business and what the company deals with and what i deal with on a daily basis. news of the world was the smallest newspaper financially of the four in the operating company news international which was the smallest by some measures of the companies within the european and asian. this is a company of over 50,000 employees globally and appropriately so the management included. we have to rely on those people
1:10am
trust them to get the job done because it is otherwise impossible to manage every single detail of the country. this committee produced a report in 2009 in which we said we planned it inconceivable any one person was called and that the companies were guilty of collective amnesia. do they published the evidence of 2,000 lined a result of that is that your papers describe this committee and in particular the members of the committee is a disgrace to parliament. would it be more appropriate when they reach that conclusion to the investigation rather an option of the committee? >> i think as i said before, at various times through the process the company, and i am sorry for this, the company
1:11am
moves into an aggressive defense to quickly and it was too easy for the company to do that with all of the noise and the clamor around the business. and i think that particularly with respect to the early 2010 report, a more forensic look at the specific evidence that had been given to this committee in 2009 would have been something that we could have done, and you know, i could have directed the management of the company to do differently. but at that time i stepped away from the day-to-day management of the news international and i think in hindsight today looked back at the reaction to the committee in the bank that would be a real turning point if you will for the companies to have taken. >> the company of the highest level should have had a good look at the evidence that was
1:12am
giving in retrospect in 2009 had a proper look at that in 2010. >> after giving legal the advice and from the end of a certain question that you had not been arrested or are currently on bail and free to the questions are going to put you? >> i've not been arrested and i am not currently on bail and i am free to answer questions and i would like to. i should say that to the extent the question relates to the matter to the carvel investigation or the individuals that are currently invested some of the things would be appropriate for me to answer. >> when the committee suppressions as well as tom
1:13am
crone. >> the recent submission, yes. >> supplied like to ask a series of questions about those documents for which i would be grateful for just a yes or no answer. do you accept that mr. crone prepared a detailed memorandum concerning the gordon taylor case which sent mr. mylar in may 2008? >> mr. crone prepared a memorandum that was substantially narrow and didn't raise certain things to the memorandum and that is a critical point --. estimate the figure was on the 24th of may. >> was prepared by mr. crone who in advance of the meeting. >> i don't know that i would assume that is the case and some of the things in that memorandum were discussed with me in the conversation with crone and
1:14am
mr. mylar on the tenth of june, so that is a yes. >> would you say the memorandum acknowledges the documents recently and that a lowercase had widespread criminality and were in crone's words faithful to your case and that your position was very perilous? >> mr. crone did use those words around the evidence being signaled to our case. but again at no point in that memorandum was it mentioned for example widespread criminality with respect to the phone hacking and those crucial details from the leading counsel of the opinion that had been left out in that memorandum of the 24th. >> such as a yes. >> i think the memorandum was prepared. it did not discuss the crucial elements of the widespread criminality and certainly didn't mention the individuals involved
1:15am
use it you met colin mylar on the 25th of may to discuss the case. you were not sure if it was a meeting that he accepted the conversation. >> i answered the german's question earlier on. i'm aware of the note of the conversation not mr. mylar or i recall that conversation. a conversation or telephone call could have happened but i am either accept or deny that it could. i have no recollection of it. >> so the only substantive meeting that occurred on the subject was on june 10th with mr. mylar and mr. crone. >> but to accept the conversation with mylar that he believed it was a conversation and relayed the message you wanted to take with you of an external before deciding what actions to take. you had said that document exists. >> i said the document exists but i don't think it is what you are characterizing it as saying. mr. mylar and mr. crone had instructed the leading counsel at that point and this is an
1:16am
important point it wasn't me who told them to instruct the leading counsel. they had already done that and with mr. mylar neither mr. mylar or i recall that conversation or what the conversation was about at that point. >> but it's very clear under the impression that was left to instruct. >> he says that colin mylar spoke to james murdock, no options, wait for the opinion or something of the like. it doesn't tall say that i instruct mr. mylar to speak to the opinion. >> but you expect that they appear petty detail on the merits of the case for june, 2008? >> yes, i've now seen that. >> and the opinion stated that there is overwhelming evidence for the involvement of a number of news group newspaper journalists and the illegal inquiries into the naim in
1:17am
addition there is substantial surrounding material about the extensive journalist attempt to obtain access to information he legally information to the individuals in the light of these facts there is the case that there is a culture of illegal information used in order to produce stories of the publication? >> i don't have the quotation in front of me that he did provide an opinion that isn't shown to me at the time, nor was it discussed in those terms in any way. and his it concludes there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is widespread activity and the legal voice mail intercept st >> so you to accept from the receipts of these you met with mr. mylar but mr. crone on the tenth of june to discuss the case and following that meeting mr. crone called to report from the discussion? >> as i've testified to this committee in the past and i've
1:18am
written to this committee in some detail on this matter is this the only substantive meeting that i recall ochered on the tenth of june that is the case it was mr. crone and mr. mylar and it was to discuss the case, but it was in order to for them to receive the authority to increase the settlement offer that the hell ready-made. >> that seems to be what is in the documents provided to you. >> did you accept the conversation on the tenth of june, 2008 states that presumably you said he wants to think through the options? >> i've seen that and i don't recall -- i recall reading that meeting with a clear understanding that they would increase their offer. whether or not there were some time to address on it for a minute i don't recall that conversation. >> do you accept that crone and
1:19am
mylar had this since they left the company's employment? >> it's my understanding that the default. >> do you expect that crone stated in the letters to the number 2011 he believes you have knowledge of the widespread criminal to be identified by the memorandum of the 24th of may, 2008 and it is the opinion of the first of june, 2008, and that you have this from at least 27 of may, 2008, when he met to discuss mr. crone's memorandum of the 24th? >> i don't accept that at all. i was given the tenth of june meeting to authorize the increase of the settlement offers of mr. crone and mr. mylar had already made. not that mr. mylar or i remember a conversation on the 27th of may. and the opinion was not shown to be discussed in that context nor was any evidence of the widespread phone hacking or any reason to carry out any further
1:20am
investigation shown to me or to discuss at that time and that is when i testified to consistently for this committee in writing over the last number of months. >> you failed to inform the committee on the 27th of may meeting for the discussion mr. mylar didn't have a recollection of it is inconceivable that throughout this two week period you didn't at any stage discuss either crone's memorandum for the full e-mail given that these were the three documents that would intersect the claim that you were previously defending making an unprecedented payment to despise? >> as i'm testifying to you and i think mr. crone said mr. mylar testify as well none of those documents were given to me or shown to me attend the june meeting were previously. neither mr. mylar or i recall
1:21am
the 27 this made the alleged conversation and seeing as we might have had a telephone call wasn't substance of because of otherwise one of us might have remembered it, and i've testified very consistently about my knowledge, evidence or suspicion about the phone hacking, and that's what happened. the period between those days was one where i wasn't in london naturally. the week before the tenth of june meeting i was in india and then in hong kong after that and i returned late in the afternoon on the tenth from other business in the u.k. not related to news international. >> let me just ask you again did he mislead this committee in your original testimony? >> no. >> if you didn't, who did? >> as i've written to you and i will say publicly, i believe this committee was given
1:22am
evidence by individuals either without the possession or now it appears in the process of my own discovery in trying to understand as best i can actually happened here. it was economical. i think my own testimony has been consistent. i testified to this committee with as much clarity and transparency as it possibly can, and where i haven't had direct knowledge in the past since i've testified to you last time i have on and try to seek answers and find out what happened or the evidence is and that's what i'm here to do. >> the legal but laser for many years who did what, who mislead this committee? >> as i wrote to you and issued a public statement certainly in the evidence that they gave to you 2011 with respect to my knowledge i thought it was inconsistent and not right.
1:23am
>> you think mr. crone misled it? >> [inaudible] >> i don't have a reason to believe that north we have direct evidence. >> it only emerges from the civil trials of the end of 2010, is that right? >> to my attention that is right, yes bigot >> we know that statement was completely untrue. we know the critical fact some seen by the company as early as 2008. so who told you that it was only in 2010 that the company became aware? >> certainly i became aware of the critical factors in 2010 after the due process of the civil trial uncovered some of the police evidence in discovery
1:24am
by the civil claimants. >> who told you? >> previously i had received assertions from mr. mylar, the there was no new evidence. and you know, as you have received those assertions as well in 2009 and later to read estimate you sympathize the frustration of the committee he said it wasn't a matter of regret the fact is haven't emerged and couldn't be to my understanding faster. you now know that that wasn't true. >> it is a matter of concern, and i think what i try to describe earlier with respect to how i think about what we could do differently and how we could improve on what happened here think the amount of transparency between what was known by certain individuals or what was seen by them in the counsel's opinion etc is valued more transparent to me and i think that would have been very
1:25am
helpful but there was not and that is a matter of great regret. >> so the correct position is that the fact emerged in 2008 for the committee. >> the facts did not emerge in 2008. certain individuals were aware. the leading counsel opinion was there and the e-mails were their none of those things were made available were discussed with me and i was not aware of those things and even in 2000 - labour had made allegations about those things, the company relied and i testified to this fact and i will say again the company relied for too long on repeated assertions and assurances as to the quality and their rigor and scope of the internal investigations that had been carried out and also on the a stearns's and assertions made by the public police who have all the relevant information that no new evidence was found within 24
1:26am
numbers of the 2009 allocation for example. >> they didn't show when they met on the tenth of june. could they have discussed it with you when you had that conversation on the 27th of may? >> now that mr. mylar or i had a conversation on the 27th of may. >> contemporaneous notes of the discussion with mr. mylar following that meeting you agreed with mylar to wait in relation to damages. >> presumably i would get what he's talking about. >> the opinion would be prepared to decide what to do about the deal as planned? spec with respect to damages tariffs and again he contained the words i just read to you it also states goodman had a
1:27am
hurried process and they didn't believe culture in the news world that is no longer here. james would say get rid of them. you accept that note? >> the part that he's writing down what mr. mylar was telling him and what i can see in that note is actually a conversation between mr. brank and mr. thank you mr. mylar referred to the process in the investigations and assuming with respect to the allegations and the dismissal claim he doesn't believe there's a problem in the newsroom and then i think crucially it really shows that perhaps he was worried about raising these issues with me and i would have
1:28am
said about the cancer of the people suspected of wrongdoing we would pursue they would hold accountable and that is the way that he would approach it and i would approach it and i think that speaks -- i think that speaks volumes and it's also why perhaps i was given a narrow set of facts than i might have liked in the june 10th meeting in that year the following week and a half later. >> but it does suggest there was the culture of news hacking in the paper. >> not between myself and mr. mylar as the transcript of the discussion with mr. mylar as i understand it. >> [inaudible] you remember this note to jerry well when you said you didn't believe the problem i believe it was saying i don't believe the culture in the newsroom.
1:29am
completely different. >> that is a different interpretation. i guess it wouldn't be a punctuation issued in the transcript it is hard to come across. it doesn't really matter. the point is none of it was discussed with me. >> so you suggested that there was no mention of the e-mail despite its being central to the discussions and in the opinion fights? >> i want to be very clear to me and let me say this again, dhaka so-called e-mail now referred to but not then referred to as the females mentioned as importance to it being a transcript of a voice mail interception that came through that proved that it was on behalf of news of the world. it wasn't shown to me nor was it discussed with media for feature that it was and that it might indicate widespread knowledge were widespread activities of
1:30am
phone hacking. it was important for two reasons. was the evidence that was fatal to the case but was also evidence that might have in conjunction of leading counsel's opinion and the appropriate transparency that i would have liked in retrospect to have had referred to the investigations and moving forward on a different footing. ..
1:31am
>> there is no mention disgusted that meeting? >> certainly not. >> do still mentioned that even in passing given the strength of the words used? >> yes. exactly right they did not mention it proposed to the hearts of the problem to discuss that sentiment. i did not write anything. >> they gave me sufficient information to authorize the increase of the settlement offer that they had already made, they commenced making some weeks before without my knowledge and they left the meeting with the 32 continue
1:32am
to negotiate. they did not give me any documents a year for two or discuss them with me in the charter that you describe or weren't widespread phone hacking allegations or the like or they did they discuss the wider use contained in the counsel's opinion. >> but the contacts? >> but to the opinion was discussed in the context of damages and estimates of potential damages to be made which again the relevant information to leave the meeting with the authority to increase their settlement of first-class. >> you talked 50 minutes without anything of the opinion? >> i think with those details were discussed what had been a lot longer meeting.
1:33am
>> but then you didn't discuss? >> repeat the question. >> you didn't discuss whether a large payment was necessary? to make it was made clear two me that the case had evidence that linked to the voice mail interception to news to the world a head the there was three 1/7 of the images with plaintiffs' cost and the company's cost the estimate was made and i recall i think i testified in july somewhere between 500,000 pounds and 1 million pounds a and this is what would be required to settle the case and relative to litigating the case and losing it was a reasonable decision to go with the legal a device that was received. >> what about your previous testimony to this community? >> i cannot speculate why
1:34am
they did that. >> you said i sought legal advice take and on the expected damages. and thought the case could be lost if not made aware of any new evidence but simply related to the events of 2007. do you except this is not a matter of assessment but those received and they and the committee were misled on that particular point*? >> to be clear referring to my testimony and i stand buy it that was my understanding at the time and precisely how i anders stand at the time it was reasonable to make the decision that was made now seeing the leading counsel opinion as is said earlier it would have been a
1:35am
better if the whole nature of the opinion in all issues contained would mark be made clear but none of those were discussed with me with the june 10th meeting or conversation en psat albreck of dma extent between the two and the only things that were discussed is what it was deemed as suspicious to increase the settlement offers they were already making to a much larger sum. >> it is clear you will not answer any more questions. i will not do this but given that it is in the paper this morning i have to tell you although it is supposed to be in confidence there is public-interest in revealing what he said to me. you have not seen this yet but will make it available to you.
1:36am
he said the four u.n. two-seat james murdoch did you discuss your strategy with him or with anybody else? finreg he discussed the strategy with me but just before he went to see murdoch and said we had to settle he had to speak to me about the transcripts was all about. we have a problem because of this. what this is about this this neville talking to tom grow. >> i looked at this. i don't know tom. i never received it. i don't know. clearly being attacked, somebody must have asked access to do this they were asked to do but so many things at the time. he would have to be pretty dumb not to know. tom comes to me with a full explanation this has nothing
1:37am
to do with me. we discuss things. however, this shows it has gone to the office comment to the office, through x. of the computer in the office. it is international culpable and you have to settle i will have to show this to james murdoch. i can remember him saying that is because do you have to show him this? he will think the worst of me and it all has to do with me is there any way we can get around it? he said i am sorry but i have to show him this because it is the only reason why we have to settle. i have to show him this price and i will lose my job and he said not necessarily. not necessarily. could debbie a true and accurate account of neville's recollection? >> i have no idea.
1:38am
mr. watts it -- mr. watson if you could provide a two was seven other times i can tell you know, point* did either discuss evidence of suspicion of widespread phone hacking during the meeting of june 10th or otherwise in relation to increasing the offer of settlement with mr. taylor's attorneys. >> he said this is not a vague memory. i was on the knife's edge he was going to show it do james murdoch but then we jumped to the conclusion of derided him. then i said to him do you show him the male? he cannot remember now but said "c.s.i." did. so he did show it to him? he said yes.
1:39am
>> he did not show me the e-mail might understanding now is that the mayo was subject to stringent and a confidentiality agreement with the police are the attorney and. >> here were the transcripts and a large chunks of redacted tax in that is all i have seen is what you have seen. i would answer your question clear and consistent way azide can. yes i had see them at that point* with the reductions. yes. >> i did look at the report.
1:40am
mr. watts then, i really cannot say what they may have discussed. i am happy to see that but for my recollection is clear and if committee was this mafia. >> yes, mr. watson? >> [inaudible] >> i am not the aficionado's direct it means a group of people to get around is secrecy with no regard to the lot to disruption a general criminality. >> i am not familiar with the term particularly. >> would you agree with me that this is an accurate description of news international in the uk? >> absolutely not.
1:41am
fray that is offensive and it is not true. >> there are allegations of phone hacking, a computer hacking, and perjury facing this company. all of this happened without your knowledge. >> as i have said mr. watson and this committee on a number of locations, it is a matter of grave regret that things went walt -- went wrong at news of the road 2006. the company did not come to grips with the issue and we all recognize that if we also acknowledge that evidence was given without full possession of the facts and i am sorry for but i can tell you that when the evidence comes to life and we finally achieved the transparency that is appropriate the company has acted with a great deal of diligence to get to the bottom of the issues and to
1:42am
make sure that co-operation. >> you must be the first mafia boss and history. >> please. that is inappropriate. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like to ask you questions about the decision to settle. you have rightly said it was about understanding what level of settlement should be paid. and did not should resettle are not but how much should we be prepared to pay and what other tactics? so when did you decide the case had to be settled?
1:43am
>> i did not take that decision mr. q'uaran had already started to pursue that path what is clear in the documents that have been provided to you and the news internationally waved privilege and i and a stand mr. crum started some weeks aforehand but it did not until the point* that they felt it was necessary when the number was large enough it would draw my attention to it but they all read the sought to settle at a variety of levels before. >> you said in july 2 in the testimony come you were not made aware of any evidence. >> that is what i won't understood that the time and had not been made aware of
1:44am
things yet. >> bayou were aware of the transcripts? >> the internal discussions. >> i think it was a new disclosure. i don't remember how it was described as new but it was described as hearing this is a transcript of voice mail interception and proven on behalf of news of the rope. >> that information at the tryout. >> but to be clear, it was an instance of deception that had already been a part of the trial beforehand. >> that is one of the counts her. >> did you challenge them?
1:45am
>> we can afford to be used decked out to in then a may 16 stamos of four but are what are on council had said about the involvement in the 10 -- company it is simply a case that would be lost and describe briefly that there was evidence of the voice mail interception and if approved it was on behalf of news of the world, open and shut the company would use it and it was a board to settle the case because litigation would be costly and we seen more at the end of something that had been going on before as opposed to the beginning of something new. >> when you talk about how much did they recommend to settle? i was certainly told the
1:46am
number that sticks out in my mind i think was i want to save for hundreds of staying the thousand and pounds plus expenses that was the ultimate number settled this >> he could declare the next up. >> his opinion which i did not see at the time described as to differ 2000 or possibly more obol sides. >> increase of 150 by the time you bit on the tenth of june. >> so these increases were being made but it was essential the double. >> the escalation of those offered has only come to light recently and described an author -- and offer had been made i do not remember the exact at the time but it
1:47am
was rejected and they thought it would cost somewhere in the range between 500,000 and 1 million pounds but when you add up the cost, both sides of the game plus the damages said that that was reasonable and gave me strong advice it was reasonable to sell. >> when you have the meeting on the tenth of june, you had no idea? >> were you even know where? >> certainly as vague discuss at some length extensively? >> it is the only conversation that i recall going into details about authorization to settle and the evidence that was their. as discussed earlier, there
1:48am
is the discussion whether or not there was say conversational telephone call on the 27 the of me neither of us recall its but a telephone call could have happened is. >> in that mix discussed earlier, the issues event for the contract if those as a result from the police to keep the commissioners' work which has the disregard for other journalist who were involved in illegal activities. this is getting more prominence with any mention made it to you after all? >> no. it is important to reiterate it was not shared with me at
1:49am
anytime during this period. i have since read it and those things were not discussed birthday wurm it was simply sufficient information to increase the level of a settlement and that is what was discussed. none of those other things were discussed the. >> but simply on the basis of those other reasons? >> if you add in a possible sides make it reasonable to settle at a higher level and i followed their advice. they strongly advised us to seto and i descended with the legal manager and other of news of the world in at the time had nothing but other than interest of the company at heart.
1:50am
>> but had you lost that recommendation is that a high level of which a with a fair amount of damages. >> but if you take the 250,000 pounds or more to add in the cost of mr. taylor as well where they need to pursue that, you can get a higher but that is part of the complexity and so on. there are amounts that was agreed and we have received counsel's opinion and to
1:51am
also it was strong it fights but it was right to settle. >> one final thing. >> that is part of the trial. but. >> if there is nothing else involved? >> if it was described to me there was clear evidence, there did not seem a point* to take it all the way to court to taken nine it if the company was convinced they would lose a never damages possible and rather than go through that it is reasonable to avoid that expense. u risktalk about thethon to the company?
1:52am
>> surgeon it was seen as dragging it matters of the past and it would have beent desirable not have all of these things dragged upou again as a testified and was not aware of the time there was then a confidentiality of our anything out of theterm ordinary in terms of a confidentiality but i wroteli in august and that was discussed between theomet lawyers and became clear after theyo fact.. >> but this is the normal part because he said many companies payout to is that something you discussed? >> there was no discussion of because no other things were mentioned but it seemed
1:53am
pointless to take it to court because it would be highe profile that was certain that the time to lose the case say and the>> t spin my people come to you to say we have too. >> but the reasons were given to me around the evidence in the case not with relation to the wider spread hacking in respect to this case to make you did say very strong advice they would lose the case. >> you do not ask the overtonesat that is so you have to pay. >> and to the the council's
1:54am
opinion spec if you would have asked you would have understood why.e no there are some a documents and to ignore what he does speak says what he finds inw this case you develop thatm to new did not ask anybodyo about it.cr >>on i was given a range where the litigation was likely to settle and i was told in the damage is estimated the estimate plus cost would land within this range and went along with advice the. >> does not sound like it is textbook. >> just to put this in the context it is a large amount
1:55am
of money and to reach yancey but other executives haveha seen that. i did not. march transparency around some of those things wouldan have been good news international business inse thiss rate i was running and they had come with strong and vice and get the authorization 10 lourdes. >> you never considered. >> the only options available word to go forward
1:56am
litigating the case and whether or not there were other questions, i do not recall. i recall reading that meeting with it clear sense theye would do that and i believe that is what they felt as well as they testified to use. >> just to clarify of what i a.m. unsure about, you are not aware the meeting took place on a 27 of me? iid get that. do recall is some point* saying let's wait for the deal which did send the note that said you had said to him to you recall sayingdo that? >> i don't recall that but there is no record over.h
1:57am
>> its is me but i don'tti have for recollection of how but you. >> if they do not have that i would have asked what they thought to but they did and they came to me with a recommendation that levying council have provided an permission to them. >> the bill i am struggling with now seems to indicate you were aware of the figure that encroaches to the cost on top but you said if i remember right, you were not aware of the exact numbers michael silver leaf gave? wa
1:58am
>> it was described to me ael's range and levying council had beene sought this was aa reasonable range.g >> but when you came before us last time you seem to be y very precise about thereci opinion.t la your answer the floor was the advice is the damages could be 250,000 pounds which is spot on. >> that is exactly what i just said. >> the you said you were not quite sure. >> direct election last specifically, and the
1:59am
medellin going around to plus the cost azide testified that an air itt co could be 250,000 pounds are possibly more and in thed in consideration to add on a cost and i am trying to be as specific and transparent as i he and i think you described it as an. >> so i explained the difference between mr. 15 minute meeting to down a productive meeting. >> first of all, i said 50 north 30 minutes. i think it did is recordedco in the nose is about 30

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)